Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
United Airlines To Return 14 Aircraft Back ..  
User currently offlineSquirrel83 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 14382 times:

United Airlines is not sure it can keep eight planes that a federal appeals court has ruled could be taken back by the aircraft's leaseholders. United rejected leases on six aircraft, these 8 are B767s, aircraft generally used for long haul. Already in November the leaseholders wanted to seize the aircraft. In the second half of the month United will not be out of Court, for several crucial court hearings. And Wednesday we will know if the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers will a strike: a strike that would be "suicidal."

Latest: United Airlines has won a court battle to keep hold of 14 of its aircraft.

United is challenging the right of the Chapman Group of creditors, which controls 175 of United's planes, to repossess 14 aircraft that have been used as collateral to back debt, alleging they are colluding with a broader group of aircraft creditors in violation of antitrust law.

But under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, secured creditors have the right to repossess planes 60 days after the bankruptcy filing if they are not being paid in full, a right that is not limited by any other provision of the title or by any power of the court.

United won a temporary restraining order barring the creditors from repossessing the planes. 175 of the 460 planes United's fleet are owned by the same leaseholders, "the Chapman Group". United's unsecured creditors committee alleges the airline is being pushed to pay unfair prices on leases and loans for about 175 planes owned by a group of 30 financiers.

United has reduced its workforce by 38%.

If it turns out to be strike and leaseholders want their aircraft back the market will be flooded with some 200 aircraft. "

http://www.airfinancejournal.com/

[Edited 2005-05-12 02:02:38]

63 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineC133 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 225 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 14303 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Where is the quote from?


Fine: Tax for doing wrong. Tax: Fine for doing well.
User currently offlineMarkATL From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 540 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 13872 times:

Here we go...Braniff, Eastern, Pan Am, TWA.......


"...left my home in Georgia, 'n headed for the "Frisco" Bay...
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11840 posts, RR: 62
Reply 3, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 13838 times:

Quoting Squirrel83 (Thread starter):
United Airlines is not sure it can keep eight planes that a federal appeals court has ruled could be taken back by the aircraft's leaseholders.

So are they giving them back or not? This sentence, together with the title of this thread, is a bit confusing.

Is UA merely unsure of their rights to these planes or the status of these planes' leases, or are they actively seeking to return 8 of the 767s?


User currently offlineKahala777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 13711 times:

Quoting Squirrel83 (Thread starter):
the market will be flooded with some 200 aircraft.

America West, Spirit, Northwest, Jet Blue, Air Canada, and Mexicana would be more than happy with the availability of the A319/A320 products!

America West, Northwest, Continental, and American would be more than happy to take on the 757-200 ETOP's!

Northwest Airlines, Thai, Malaysia, Korean, JAL, Virgin Atlantic, Air France, Singapore, Cathay, China Airlines and others would be more than happy to snag a 747-400 or two!

Continental Airlines, and American Airlines are both in the market for 777-200ER's!

North American, ATA, American, and Hawaiian would all be to content with grabbing a 767-300 or two!

Quoting Squirrel83 (Thread starter):
United has reduced its workforce by 38%

.. and more in the days ahead!


Regards - Kahala777


User currently offlineMoose1226 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 250 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 13563 times:

Quoting Kahala777 (Reply 4):

America West, Spirit, Northwest, Jet Blue, Air Canada, and Mexicana would be more than happy with the availability of the A319/A320 products!

America West, Northwest, Continental, and American would be more than happy to take on the 757-200 ETOP's!

Northwest Airlines, Thai, Malaysia, Korean, JAL, Virgin Atlantic, Air France, Singapore, Cathay, China Airlines and others would be more than happy to snag a 747-400 or two!

Continental Airlines, and American Airlines are both in the market for 777-200ER's!

North American, ATA, American, and Hawaiian would all be to content with grabbing a 767-300 or two!

Most of those airlines would have engine issues with UA's a/c.

A32X: UA uses IAE. NW and AC use CFM
757: UA uses PW. CO and AA use RR
744: UA uses PW. Thai, MH, JL, VS, and AF use GE. CX uses RR.
777: UA uses PW. CO uses GE. AA uses RR.
763: UA uses PW. ATA has no 767's. American uses GE.

Flooding the market with 200 airplanes is not at all good for Boeing OR Airbus...


User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13170 posts, RR: 15
Reply 6, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 13414 times:

Of course the problem with having to return these a/c is that they are probably usable for many long-haul, mainline/Hawaii, USA-Europe flights, which I would presume are UA's main profit centers. Kinda stupid isn't it, especially with the summer peak season comming soon? A question for the lessor is if they take them back, wouldn't they be out of service for a couple of months for redos for their new lessees so would lose income for a while then?

User currently offlineMarkATL From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 540 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 13358 times:

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 6):
A question for the lessor is if they take them back, wouldn't they be out of service for a couple of months for redos for their new lessees so would lose income for a while then?

Perhaps they see UA as "Dead Airline Flying"? This would let them get the aircraft in the pipeline and out to new lessees at decent rates. Before the whole fleet hits the market.

[Edited 2005-05-12 04:17:07]


"...left my home in Georgia, 'n headed for the "Frisco" Bay...
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16892 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 13279 times:

Quoting Kahala777 (Reply 4):
America West, Northwest, Continental, and American would be more than happy to take on the 757-200 ETOP's

AA, CO and HP operate RR powered 757s, NWA and DL operate Pratts which are compatible with UAL's.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineByrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2424 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 13095 times:

Quoting Moose1226 (Reply 5):
A32X: UA uses IAE

Great news for HP. That's 55 IAE A320's and 22 A319's to come on the market.



The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
User currently offlineTundra767 From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2005, 430 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 12978 times:

Quoting Moose1226 (Reply 5):
763: UA uses PW. ATA has no 767's.

ATA is in the market for 767's and can't seem to find any. This would be a great source. I guess the reason for the leasing companies to take the planes would be other potential customers willing to pay for them. Asian, European airlines seem to be making money while U.S. airlines for the most part are loosing it by the plane load.


User currently offlineSv11 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 161 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 12926 times:

I believe there may be quite a demand in Asia for these aircraft, especially the widebodies.

sv11


User currently offlineHA_DC9 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 655 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 12919 times:

Quoting Moose1226 (Reply 5):
763: UA uses PW. ATA has no 767's. American uses GE.

HA uses PW 763s. It is well known that they will be looking for new aircraft once they leave chapter 11 around the beginning of next month. I'm sure the UA leaseholder is well aware of this.


User currently offlineQuickmover From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2494 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 12873 times:

No offense intended to the posters on this thread, but with all of this talk about other carriers picking up bargains on aircraft, where would they get the money? I think we are about to see some major reality checks on the value of airline assets. If you can't make money flying these jets to "wherever", why paint them in your colors. Call me a pessimist, but I think these desert parking lots are going to fill up until oil drops or capacity is reduced. Keeping these same planes flying in a different livery doesn't change anything unless costs are dramatically lower or revenue is higher. Even the LCCs are challenged and if WN didn't have hedges in place for fuel, they would be losing money right now too.

User currently offlineLN-MOW From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1908 posts, RR: 13
Reply 14, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 12668 times:

ATA wants RR-767's ...

However it's not as simple as Kahala777 thinks ... and you don't get ETOPS cerification by taking over a couple of certified aircraft. It's the AIRLINE that must be certified.



- I am LN-MOW, and I approve this message.
User currently offlineContinentalFan From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 357 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 12647 times:

Quoting LN-MOW (Reply 14):
ATA wants RR-767's ...

However it's not as simple as Kahala777 thinks ... and you don't get ETOPS cerification by taking over a couple of certified aircraft. It's the AIRLINE that must be certified.

There are very few RR-powered 767s in existence (mostly with BA, Qantas, and a handful of others).

True that the whole airline needs to be ETOPS certified, but it sure helps to have a plane that is already qualified.


User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12285 posts, RR: 18
Reply 16, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 12517 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting Commavia (Reply 3):
Quoting Squirrel83 (Thread starter):
United Airlines is not sure it can keep eight planes that a federal appeals court has ruled could be taken back by the aircraft's leaseholders.

So are they giving them back or not? This sentence, together with the title of this thread, is a bit confusing.

Totally agree, is UA returning aircraft or not?


User currently offlineUA772IAD From Australia, joined Jul 2004, 1733 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 12494 times:

Quoting Squirrel83 (Thread starter):
nited rejected leases on six aircraft, these 8 are B767s, aircraft generally used for long haul.

Is this legitimate or is it me? First it says SIX (6) A/C, then it says EIGHT (8), then it goes on to 14 (thread topic) which is it? Or do I have the feeling that this is someones "professional opinion" or for-instance scenereo...

[Edited 2005-05-12 07:34:21]

User currently offlineSTLGph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 9500 posts, RR: 26
Reply 18, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 12400 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 3):
Quoting Squirrel83 (Thread starter):
United Airlines is not sure it can keep eight planes that a federal appeals court has ruled could be taken back by the aircraft's leaseholders.

So are they giving them back or not? This sentence, together with the title of this thread, is a bit confusing.

you're not kidding. this has to be one of the most backwards thread starters i have ever read in my life.

Quoting Squirrel83 (Thread starter):
In the second half of the month United will not be out of Court, for several crucial court hearings.

what the??!??!!

Quoting Squirrel83 (Thread starter):
Latest: United Airlines has won a court battle to keep hold of 14 of its aircraft.

but i thought 14 aircraft were being given back

Quoting Squirrel83 (Thread starter):
But under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, secured creditors have the right to repossess planes 60 days after the bankruptcy filing if they are not being paid in full, a right that is not limited by any other provision of the title or by any power of the court.

and it gets worse.

Quoting Squirrel83 (Thread starter):
United won a temporary restraining order barring the creditors from repossessing the planes.

and worse....



if assumptions could fly, airliners.net would be the world's busiest airport
User currently offlineDoug_or From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3437 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 12323 times:

Read a breif snipet in the NYT or WSJ on the plane yesterday- IIRC 14 a/c are eligiable for reposestion. 6 have either been given back since proceedings began or UAL was planning to get rid of anyway (don't remember). that leaves 8 that UAL may have to part with.


When in doubt, one B pump off
User currently offlineEnviroTO From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 829 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 12223 times:

I don't think AC is looking for A32x series aircraft now. They purchased the E190s which should free up some A32x series. They were looking for long haul to hold them over until their Boeing deliveries and that is all they are looking for AFAIK. This means that, if AC is still looking for long haul, they would likely only be interested in UAs 763ERs for a cheap 5-10 yr stint after winglets have been attached. They probably still are on the market for long haul in the short term because they currently seem to be having a hard time starting a new route without minor frequency reductions somewhere else to free up aircraft.

User currently offlineAussieItaliano From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 442 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 12162 times:

Quoting Quickmover (Reply 13):
Even the LCCs are challenged and if WN didn't have hedges in place for fuel, they would be losing money right now too.

But even though most US carriers are losing money, many foreign carriers are posting record profits. It is those airlines that would most likely be in the market for picking up some of UA's aircraft if UA were to liquidate (which I hope doesn't happen).



LHR - The Capital of the World
User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2102 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 12109 times:

Quoting UA772IAD (Reply 17):

Is this legitimate or is it me? First it says SIX (6) A/C, then it says EIGHT (8), then it goes on to 14 (thread topic) which is it? Or do I have the feeling that this is someones "professional opinion" or for-instance scenereo...

Of 14 aircraft, six have already been returned. The remaining 8 that are likely to be reposessed are 767-300s. UA could of course make a deal to keep them. There was an attempt to seize them during Thanksgiving weekend last year.

What are the other airlines that use PW powered 767-300s? I do not really know how eager airlines are to acquire 767s since Boeing is going to shut down the line due to a lack of orders. It may be mostly posturing by the leasing company to get a better deal. UA is switching some Pacific routes to 744s during the summer which could free some 772s to replace the lost 767s. UA also owns 10 old 767-200s that they could do a D-check on and return to service.


User currently offlineChiGB1973 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1619 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 11658 times:

If United folds, I think they would want the larger aircraft quickly. I know these airlines, especially CO, like the 757 on international routes, but the market would be flooded with customers.

What a mess it would be! Go United! Go United employees! I am hoping for the best.

M


User currently offlinePapaNovember From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 473 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 11229 times:

Quoting UA772IAD (Reply 17):
Is this legitimate or is it me? First it says SIX (6) A/C, then it says EIGHT (8), then it goes on to 14 (thread topic) which is it? Or do I have the feeling that this is someones "professional opinion" or for-instance scenereo

I think this is just a very poorly written synopsis of what the http://www.airfinancejournal.com article says.


25 DAYflyer : A loss of long haul aircraft plus a strike would spell the end of the carrier. I smell an EA type of end coming on........
26 FriendlySkies : I have a feeling that UA will do anything it can to keep these 767s, even if it means paying the leasing company what it wants. Unless they can find a
27 Aa777jr : It's not gonna get better for airlines or the industry when/if Chp 7 happens for UA. (immediately anyways...) Agreed. Would look for HA to try and pi
28 CORULEZ05 : This is very sad sad news indeed. I hope this isn't the beginning of the end of that great airline...I dont understand how the 2nd largest airline in
29 Aa777jr : Management has had UA in a nose dive for the last 10 yrs. This shouldn't come as a surprise for anyone that knows anything about comercial aviation.
30 PVD757 : Other airlines with common aircraft + engines: UA Airbuses (IAE): HP: could play into the potential US deal... NK: could complete MD80 retirement/repl
31 Kahala777 : WN is looking for only NG 737's at this time! HP is dropping its 737-300 in favor of A319/A320! CO is looking for only NG 737's at this time! Regards
32 UA772IAD : Thanks for the clarification everyone, I appreciate it! I also hope it's not true too, CORULEZ05... I agree. With what, only 37 in the fleet and my gu
33 B757capt : Hooters/ Pace is looking for some -400's and -300's.
34 Douwd20 : Quoting Quickmover: Even the LCCs are challenged and if WN didn't have hedges in place for fuel, they would be losing money right now too. I can guara
35 CORULEZ05 : So now I don't know about commercial aviation?????????????
36 Drerx7 : Continental definately does not want anything to do with the 735. They are actually the least economical aircraft in the fleet. They would like to get
37 Gigneil : I doubt that sincerely. N
38 Post contains links Mariner : Be careful what you guarantee - those fuel hedges are critical to Southwest's profits. http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050414/earns_southwest.html?.v=8 Note
39 Commavia : Not true. Southwest was almost completely hedged for Q1 2005 at approximately $26 per barrel. Given a general average of today's market oil prices at
40 Clickhappy : Neil, He knows a lot more about the subject than you do..he is a station manager for ATA.
41 ATAV2pls10 : No, we want GE powered 767-300ER's. The ones that are the hardest to find. The ones that are in the highest demand. Hence, the ones we can't get a go
42 PVD757 : If these planes get a new home, it will not be in North America. There are LCCs in Europe and Asia that have the markets and the money to snatch the n
43 PlaneSmart : Quickmover 'No offense intended to the posters on this thread, but with all of this talk about other carriers picking up bargains on aircraft, where w
44 Douwd20 : Quoting ATAV2pls10 Not true. Southwest was almost completely hedged for Q1 2005 at approximately $26 per barrel. Given a general average of today's ma
45 Highliner2 : Anybody know roughly how many of each type UA currently has in service?
46 Post contains links Squirrel83 : Try that ~ I found somthing interesting on UA's webpage They post their old Aircraft Fleet History . . All Ten eras . http://www.united.com/page/arti
47 Laxintl : As of May 1, 2005. 30 B737-500 62 B737-300 55 A319 97 A320 98 B757-200 36 B767-300 52 B777-200 31 B747-400
48 Padcrasher : Simply a guess on your part. Southwest actually did raise their fares in April and wound up with a 7% load factor drop. Compared to the industry wher
49 Mariner : To be fair, their traffic went up. It is just that their ASM's went up faster, by over 13%. cheers mariner
50 Douwd20 : Quoting Padcrasher (Reply 48): Southwest actually did raise their fares in April and wound up with a 7% load factor drop. Indeed Southwest did raise t
51 Mariner : But - the point is that they are selling their product at a loss. If it were not for the fuel hedges, they would have lost money from the business of
52 Douwd20 : If they were selling their product at a loss they would have reported a loss like all the other carriers. They bought when prices were low. How is th
53 Post contains links Mariner : Whoa! They made money on the fuel hedges. They did not make money out of flying people around the country. Let's try this one mo' time: http://biz.ya
54 StevenUhl777 : Yep. No doubt about it. But, highly unlikely you'll see that pearl of wisdom on Pg. 1 of the WSJ....
55 Galapagapop : Something AA did as well which gave them the operational profit last Quarter.
56 Douwd20 : Clearly fuel is a 'raw material' needed to fly the plane/make your product. If they turned around and sold that material then I could believe they 'm
57 Mariner : I agree. I have argued exactly the same point. It remains true that we are in extraordinary times. That many airlines (not hedged) are losing great s
58 Douwd20 : Southwest has engaged in fuel hedging for over a *decade* now. When their fuel hedges expire, as they have in the past, we can be reasonably sure tha
59 Mikey711MN : It's not like they'll be able to hedge fuel at $26/barrel or whatever the old contract amount is. Upon expiration of those contracts, they'll have ef
60 Dhefty : If there were no fuel hedging, then fuel would be a constant in the operational equation for all operators. The real reason for the massive losses is
61 Douwd20 : Southwest is hedged to some degree until 2010. That's a long time before the big reset button gets pushed. And long time to adjust to whatever the ma
62 Mariner : Then I have no idea what to say. I guess I'm just wasting my time. cheers mariner
63 PlaneSmart : You are right Dhefty. But the reality is that businesses operate in the market that exists. The UA judge has agreed to the pensions move at the reques
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
United Airlines To Italy posted Sun Nov 27 2005 05:12:12 by StevenUhl777
Russian Airlines To Buy 527 Aircraft Before 2010 posted Fri Aug 26 2005 11:05:28 by Keesje
United Airlines To Launch ORD-KIX 2004.6.10 posted Sat Jan 24 2004 10:23:23 by USAJPNflyer
United Airlines To Close 23 Ticket Offices posted Wed Jun 5 2002 17:55:14 by Flyingbronco05
United Airlines To Copehagen posted Wed May 24 2000 20:17:57 by SVG
United Airlines To Tel Aviv? posted Fri Dec 31 1999 06:30:39 by Mish1234
United Airlines To BUY Air Canada A330 posted Fri Oct 22 1999 05:13:25 by FLY777UA
U.S. Airlines Seek To Stop Aging Aircraft Rule posted Thu Sep 21 2006 03:58:26 by NWDC10
United Airlines Turns To Nascar For Efficiency posted Fri Jul 14 2006 14:00:44 by Singapore_Air
Some U.S. Airlines May Return To Black posted Tue Jul 12 2005 07:24:44 by TUNisia